Self defense is one thing; initiation of force is another. Way, way back at the beginning I pointed out that you shouldn't confuse defensive and aggressive uses of force, but between then and now you appear to have developed amnesia.
In addition, you’re saying that my claim to explain myself to a judge and jury is not legitimate, which means you claim that my right to a trial by jury is not legitimate. Do you ever read your own stuff?
Of course those things are not legitimate. The only right there is, is the right to have, use and defend your own property. If you don't want to spend all your energy personally patrolling your property, then of course you can contract out your self-defense if you wish; you can also enter into various contracts with others, such as your neighbors and those with whom you do business.
Some of those contracts might stipulate the use of binding arbitration, for example. That's your prerogative. If you make no provision for the settling of disputes, then you'll have to settle on a method that is mutually agreeable with whomever you next find yourself at odds. Since both of you are rational beings, that will likely include some form of negotiation arbitrated by some third party.
That third party will have to be someone you've agreed upon, though. When you speak of a "judge and jury," you're assuming that someone out there has a monopoly on dispute resolution--namely the government--and that everyone must obey the dictates of that government. This monopoly even extends to disputes in which the government is the defendant, of course. How convenient.
"Self defense..."
I take it you are admitting you erred when you said “Force is not involved.” Good on you.
"Of course those things are not legitimate."
So it's Ok for all of us productive cooperative people to join together and get rid of a predator/parasite like yourself. That's the consequence of your words. We're not interested in any of your unilateral ravings. We're going to get together and come to an agreement by our standards, not yours.
By the way, those contracts you wrote about: I might say I've already got something like that and it says I have a right (a contractual right if you will) to a trial by jury. I point out that, if I correctly recall the circusmstances laid out as a theoretical situation, you wouldn't be around to dispute that right if I had to exercise it.